From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id +vppCaihkmCFAwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 05 May 2021 09:46:16 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 192351F11C; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:46:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [167.114.26.123]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37D061E54D for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FZyfZ47Ybz1hhg; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:46:14 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1620222374; bh=ZhCrDaEgNV2ZZHRzK627L4Asi4xRE7x8zAfHgT5Ay7c=; h=To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=S/yOQpWTpfyzck/IkNwsVNdLhM+ReksynZRb2N3KTS9J294QLg8nz0ht1jq3TMKCF 8c7mP5B7C+QTSE7PSsYce2qc+npoOVS/COwVTIugw5BAgoOrWxk/rpis4zZXjhRNcP aeF3Azd4G/isZ1tRf7VJ9xBDd8zJkSilX6rXm3xNq2hRu0pSg39BJE/8vjIxb3t957 AENo1dPLH+lGSYaZAdP8LAm6qrDXuC6l+lNeQQmknukXr9oHB2R8PJOlIjyrCczIWb tkfvpOSNUacT9Sufhy+0dvfStY0KJRWGVDd+b/TiTPwe1Me9MS4Lb9nF96ISnOJxo0 t/gj4xOnUx4OA== Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FZyfY3F77z1hhf for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 145Djx3f006889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 5 May 2021 09:46:04 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 145Djx3f006889 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 594071E54D; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:45:59 -0400 (EDT) To: Dimitri Scheftelowitsch , lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org References: <69a2d37a-d60d-deba-02d2-c3084f62b84f@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: <555b0ddc-fbad-82d0-c052-27006310a577@polymtl.ca> Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 09:45:58 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <69a2d37a-d60d-deba-02d2-c3084f62b84f@polymtl.ca> Content-Language: en-US X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Wed, 5 May 2021 13:45:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] Babeltrace trimmer segfaults on custom trace X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via lttng-dev Reply-To: Simon Marchi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" On 2021-05-04 9:57 p.m., Simon Marchi via lttng-dev wrote: > I tried to see if it would be possible for you > to just not use packets, but unfortunately I stumbled on what looks like > a bug in the CTF metadata parser, it hardcodes whether streams classes > have packets to true: > > https://github.com/efficios/babeltrace/blob/534d93a8b2ba86f56dfdf6aa7a10911da5f6432c/src/plugins/ctf/common/metadata/ctf-meta-translate.c#L576 Hi Dimitri, After talking with Philippe (Babeltrace 2's main contributor), this is not a bug in the CTF metadata parser. According to [1]: If the packet size field is missing, the whole stream only contains a single packet. So when if you don't have a packet header/context at all, the trace is considered to have a single big packet. That's why the metadata parser always create streams with packets. But the suggestion of adding timestamps to your packet is still valid. Simon [1] https://diamon.org/ctf/#spec5.2 _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev